Jesus Christ speaks there about people who are constantly obsessing with material worries: what to put on, how to dress, what to eat, etc. as can be seen from the passage's very context (Mt. 6:25-34), as well as from similar or parallel Gospel-passages (Luke 12:22-31).

Interesting. It seems to me that there must be a kind of anxiety that is not sin, since Jesus experienced an agony of heart, that is fear, of what was coming upon Him.

It comes down to faith in God. Experiencing emotional upheaval is obviously not sinful in itself, since Jesus experienced this, and did not sin. Thus, there must be something more to the sinful anxiety in Matt. 6:34. The most obvious explanation is faith, or lack of it. Unbelief is sin. Unbelief in God to provide for one's future is a sin, and it leads to anxiety. When people worry about what they will eat, drink, or wear tommorrow, they are experiencing anxiety caused by this form of unbelief.

As for Jesus, He had perfect faith in His Father, so this kind of sinful anxiety was impossible for Him. Rather, Jesus, seeing what lay ahead for Him at the Cross, was experiencing emotional upheaval over the anticipation of it, precisely because He knew what was about to happen (and as stated earlier, emotional upheaval in and of itself is not sinful). We, on the other hand, are often anxious because we do not know what is going to happen, and we worry about the different possibilities, not trusting God to work things out. There is a world of difference between the two.

Jesus Christ speaks there about people who are constantly obsessing with material worries: what to put on, how to dress, what to eat, etc. as can be seen from the passage's very context (Mt. 6:25-34), as well as from similar or parallel Gospel-passages (Luke 12:22-31).

I would imagine fear about whether the future of one's child, whether kidnapped and killed, or alive and well, is in the hand of God would qualify as well.

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel....Isa 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

Genesis gives us no time-delimiter. Isaiah 7 does. Its all about two kings that are trying to kill Ahaz, and right after saying that a child will be born of a virgin, the prophet says in 7:16 "before the child" (obviously the one born of the virgin) "shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings" and he continues to explain that the King of Assyria will run them off their thrones.

That limits the time-frame for fulfillment to the lives of these kings. And chapter 8 declares a specific child born in that time to be the fulfillment.

I'm not sure if the post's title is a grammatical stupidity or a conceptual stupidity. A concrete child in the essentially concrete "today" is entirely different from an essentially abstract "tomorrow" (which logically entails all potential tomorrows). Aren't Blogger users supposed to be at least 13 years of age?

Calling Matthew's gospel by that name goes as far back as we can trace it. Calling it a "catholic" lie would truly be necessary, since there does not appear to be any Christian branch that calls it anything else (or ever have).

If Matthew wrote 'Matthew' then why does he say "an Jesus saw a man named Matthew"? You base your faith on Catholic lies.

There is no literary rule that says the writer must at all times refer to himself as "I" did this and "I" did that. Matthew is taking the position of an outside observer as he wrote his gospel.

Perhaps you are not familiar with third-person writing? If you can at least concede the possibility of this, then you should be able to accept Matthew as the author. Of course, whether you do or not is of no concern to (I suspect) anyone here.

Ah, maybe this is why Dave Armstrong thinks Scripture isn't perspicuous! Apparently NOTHING is clear to him. For example, here he's just commented for the 3rd time on this thread despite two explicit reminders that his comments are no longer welcome here at Beggars All. So either he's a jerk with no respect for others' property, mentally unstable, or lacks any skills of reading comprehension.

I don't know which one it is, but I do know that Dave Armstrong is not welcome to post comments on Beggars All.

May I suggest, however, that deleting Dave's comments while leaving your responses to him comes across as a bit unfair. You have the right, of course, to decide who posts and who does not. Wouldn't it be the right thing to do, though, to delete your comment responses to Dave as well? Otherwise, it seems a bit one-sided.

I might consider that if there were any discussion in my comments directed to him of the topic at hand. Rather, they're just administrative comments, asking Dave to please be nice and mind his own bidness.

I understand. But they look kinda weird standing alone and makes them seem kind of petty.

This is just a suggestion. If you want to delete someone's comments for any reason, delete them and make one comment saying you deleted them and will delete any further comments from that commenter. That would be sufficient, I should think. Otherwise, your comments to no one make us wonder what the flap was all about.

And if I may be of any further service in giving unsolicited advice on how to run your blog, please don't hesitate to ask me. ;-)

I'm familiar with it. Its called fiction. You'll have to show me eye witness testimony that comes in 3rd person, because I don't know of any. Since 3rd person is so common for fiction, its clear that if an eyewitness or supposed eyewitness narrates in 3rd person its because he is fictionalizing aspects of the story. He may not even be aware of it, but may drop into third person subconsciously while fictionalizing.

But if you geniuses are so sure that 3rd person narrative is normal in non-fiction works for events the author himself was involved in, by all means provide some examples.

I see that the following comment has been deleted (perhaps by Dave himself - I won't speculate): "Rhology's comments on my blog will be allowed to remain, because I consistently abide by my beliefs in free speech and fairness of allowing both sides to comment (even if the person is arguing like an idiot)." I can testify that quite recently Dave deleted a significant number of comments - comments that (unlike his trolling here) were on topic.

I don't see why anyone would tolerate DA in their comment box when he behaves as he has behaved here. He's not here for honest, serious dialog about the subject, so why should he be given more than a kick in the rear on his way out the door?

By the way, on my own piano tuning website I have written a short "history" of my work in which I refer to myself as "Tim" rather than "I." It's possible that someone else wrote that history for me, but as it is, I was the one who wrote it and I did it in third person.

Pilgrimsarbour: "Perhaps you are not familiar with third-person writing?"

Beowulf2k8: "I'm familiar with it. Its called fiction...if you geniuses are so sure that 3rd person narrative is normal in non-fiction works for events the author himself was involved in, by all means provide some examples...You base your faith on Catholic lies."

"This is such a great day in the life of Andrew Bogut,' the big Aussie said...This is something I'm going to remember forever.'"

Andrew Bogut is a big Catholic Lie!!

"When the president is ready to deploy, Bob Dole is ready to lead the fight on the Senate Floor" (Bob Dole speaking about SDI at the NCPAC convention, 1987.)

Bob Dole is a Big Catholic Lie!!

"You don't have Nixon to kick around anymore because, gentlemen, this is my last press conference." (Richard M. Nixon, November 7, 1962)

Richard Nixon is a Big Catholic Lie!!

"I just want to win. The bottom line is whatever Todd Hundley has do to help this team win, I'll do." (Catcher Todd Hundley's travails in learning to be an outfielder, NYT 13 July 1998)

Todd Hundley is a Big Catholic Lie!!

"I'm just going to do the things Derek Harper has done for 10 years, and hopefully that will be enough." (NYT 8 Jan. 1994, p. 32)

Also, if you ever read an article from a medical journal, you are likely to find that the authors of the article do not refer to themselves by name, but will say something like, "The authors of this article..." Therefore, medical journal articles are a...

(Rhology--feel free to tack this on to my previous comment if need be)

Hey, sorry I forgot the asterisk previously. Your comment reminds me of a Seinfeld episode where the guest character (Jimmy) kept referring to himself in the third person: "Get your hands off Jimmy! Don't hurt Jimmy!"

However, I have a confession to make. My name really isn't Pilgrimsarbour, or PA, or anything even close to that.

I do hope you will not consider me a big Catholic lie for confessing this to you, although I was raised Catholic.

Rhology's grasp of Matthew 6:34: "Therefore do not be anxious about today nor the condition nor well-being of your offspring, for today and the condition and well-being of your offspring will each be anxious for themselves. Sufficient for [nil] is its own trouble."

Is that a sufficient reduction in abstraction for you to grasp? (I will point out the fact that there is a logical necessity for the insertion of [nil].)

We all know Moses didn't write Deuteronomy. Samuel freaks out over Israel wanting a king when "Moses" already prophesied that exactly that would happen? Obviously Deut didn't exist in Samuel's day. Not to mention how Deut's rules for kings just happen to be perfect advice to keep the kings after Solomon from being repeats of him! Genesis lists the kings of Edom "Who reigned before Israel had a king" which requires another post-Samuel author. And so on.

Find me some really history really written by someone other than yourselves (Tim, seriously?) where the author refers to himself in the text only by name as "a man named" whatever rather than as I, me or we.

"The authors of this article..." is not at all similar to "a man named Matthew." If he had said "Jesus walked by the sea and saw the author of this gospel" that would be totally different from "Jesus walked by the sea and saw a man named Matthew." The issue of Isaiah 7 proving that Matthew 1 is false still remains even if Matthew did write it, but of course he didn't.

You seem unable to recognize the logical implications of your own statements. Of course, as I demonstrated, the logical implications of your thoughts here are clearly absurd, and that which is absurd cannot recognize absurdity. Therefore I apologize for expecting any comprehension of my explanation.

You seem unable to recognize the logical implications of your own statements.

No, he doesn't understand what you said. For someone who treats us to a pretentious attitude, you certainly don't demonstrate the requisite reading comprehension skills.

Another drawback with attempting to impress an audience with logical terms and language is that unless people can understand your arguments, they are of no use to anyone of sound mind.

Of course, as I demonstrated, the logical implications of your thoughts here are clearly absurd, and that which is absurd cannot recognize absurdity. Therefore I apologize for expecting any comprehension of my explanation.

Your "logic" here suggests your intent, which was to move into a position where you could dismiss Rhology as your intellectual inferior. That's the kind of behavior that's a waste of time for all people reading these comment threads.

No, I meant that since the author of the fourth Gospel never calls John the Baptist "John the Baptist" but simply John, it's a hint that the author probably bore the same name. (I don't call the other Lucian in my group of friends "Lucian MOGA" either, but simply Lucian or Luci, since *I* don't need to distinguish between him and *myself*).

"how many ancient documents of the literary genre called 'life' or 'vita' have you read?"

If you know of some where the author was involved in the events related and speaks of himself as "a certain man named ___" then please list them.

As for the John thing I think it is more likely that the author simply reverenced John the Baptist to a higher degree than the synopticists. That's why he doesn't make John question Jesus, but rather plainly declare him to be the Messiah. That's also why he establishes John as a credible independent witness not a nepotistic crony who's just foisting a scam on everyone at his cousins' request (implied more or less in Luke).

"The authors of this article..." is not at all similar to "a man named Matthew." If he had said "Jesus walked by the sea and saw the author of this gospel" that would be totally different from "Jesus walked by the sea and saw a man named Matthew."

Book 1:Chapter 7--"When it was reported to Caesar that they were attempting to make their route through our Province he hastens to set out from the city...Caesar, inasmuch as he kept in remembrance that Lucius Cassius, the consul, had been slain..."

Chapter 10--"It is again told Caesar, that the Helvetii intended to march through the country of the Sequani..."

Chapter 15--"On the following day they move their camp from that place; Caesar does the same..."

Book 2:Chapter 1--"While Caesar was in winter quarters in Hither Gaul..."

Chapter 2--"Alarmed by these tidings and letters, Caesar levied two new legions in Hither Gaul..."

Chapter 17--"And as a great many of the surrounding Belgae and other Gauls, following Caesar, marched with him..."

Book 1:Chapter 1--"When Caesar's letter was delivered to the consuls, they were with great difficulty..."

Chapter 6--"...he was moreover informed and assured that Caesar's soldiers were disaffected..."

Chapter 15--"Caesar, having moved forward from Auximum, traversed the whole country of Picenum."

I could go on and on. Julius Caesar, in these historical references to himself which are sprinkled throughout these historical works chronicling his own historical role in history, Julius Caesar refers to himself as "Caesar" (PSST--that means he's referring to himself in the third-person!)

"The authors of this article..." is not at all similar to "a man named Matthew." If he had said "Jesus walked by the sea and saw the author of this gospel" that would be totally different from "Jesus walked by the sea and saw a man named Matthew."

Book 1:Chapter 7--"When it was reported to Caesar that they were attempting to make their route through our Province he hastens to set out from the city...Caesar, inasmuch as he kept in remembrance that Lucius Cassius, the consul, had been slain..."

Chapter 10--"It is again told Caesar, that the Helvetii intended to march through the country of the Sequani..."

Chapter 15--"On the following day they move their camp from that place; Caesar does the same..."

Book 2:Chapter 1--"While Caesar was in winter quarters in Hither Gaul..."

Chapter 2--"Alarmed by these tidings and letters, Caesar levied two new legions in Hither Gaul..."

Chapter 17--"And as a great many of the surrounding Belgae and other Gauls, following Caesar, marched with him..."

Book 1:Chapter 1--"When Caesar's letter was delivered to the consuls, they were with great difficulty..."

Chapter 6--"...he was moreover informed and assured that Caesar's soldiers were disaffected..."

Chapter 15--"Caesar, having moved forward from Auximum, traversed the whole country of Picenum."

I could go on and on. Julius Caesar, in these historical references to himself which are sprinkled throughout these historical works chronicling his own historical role in history, Julius Caesar refers to himself as "Caesar" (PSST--that means he's referring to himself in the third-person!)

Book 1:Chapter 7--"When it was reported to Caesar that they were attempting to make their route through our Province he hastens to set out from the city...Caesar, inasmuch as he kept in remembrance that Lucius Cassius, the consul, had been slain..."

Chapter 10--"It is again told Caesar, that the Helvetii intended to march through the country of the Sequani..."

Book 2:Chapter 1--"While Caesar was in winter quarters in Hither Gaul..."

Chapter 2--"Alarmed by these tidings and letters, Caesar levied two new legions in Hither Gaul..."

Chapter 17--"And as a great many of the surrounding Belgae and other Gauls, following Caesar, marched with him..."

Book 1:Chapter 1--"When Caesar's letter was delivered to the consuls, they were with great difficulty..."

Chapter 6--"...he was moreover informed and assured that Caesar's soldiers were disaffected..."

Chapter 15--"Caesar, having moved forward from Auximum, traversed the whole country of Picenum."

I could go on and on. Julius Caesar, in these historical references to himself which are sprinkled throughout these historical works chronicling his own historical role in history, Julius Caesar refers to himself as "Caesar" (PSST--that means he's referring to himself in the third-person!)

Um, yeah, and that was Julius Caesar. Of Rome. The man was a Catholic! You're just giving us more Catholic lies, deceit, forgeries, misleadings, twaddlings, and bamboozlement. You need to put a lot more effort into this search for the untruth of half the biblical books if you want to be good enough to get into Heaven!

If you wish to complain of reading comprehension skills, please defend Rhology's absurd claim that being anxious about the future is equivalent to being anxious for the well-being of one's child. Or perhaps you'd like to defend his errors of grammar, such as equivocation of a verb with an adjective, or the complete disregard for context, intent, and meaning, or the total disconnect between his construal of a translation and the actual untranslated Greek grammar. Or perhaps you could demonstrate that no psychological incoherence is implied by his dispositional equivocation, but that's probably asking far too much at this point.

You of course completely misread my "intent," so now I have to question your own reading comprehension skills. I clearly stated that my intent was to demonstrate how Rhology's thought implied absurdity. (I trust you know what an implication is.) I expected him to recognize his own absurdity when it was mirrored back at him, but afterward realized my expectations were unrealistic.

So three possibilities remain. One, defend the notion that absurdity is unworthy of dismissal (i.e. we should give some measure of credibility to irrationality). Two, find some way to demonstrate the non-absurdity of Rhology's complete inattention to grammar, context, meaning, and intent. Three, show how my demonstration of the implied logic of the post is incorrect.

It all began when IP posted the unnecessarily obscure sentence: A concrete child in the essentially concrete "today" is entirely different from an essentially abstract "tomorrow" (which logically entails all potential tomorrows).

Tell you what - explain what that means in relation to the Matthew passage I cited, and we can go from there. But make sure to keep pouring on the abusive language - that makes you look much more godly.

You of course completely misread my "intent," so now I have to question your own reading comprehension skills. I clearly stated that my intent was to demonstrate how Rhology's thought implied absurdity. (I trust you know what an implication is.)

As if discerning intention was merely a matter of taking you at your word. Even if we just restricted your comments to your language of failed expectations, you have shown you're just here to condescend.

If you were here to issue arguments, you would focus on arguments; you would go ahead and apologize for being unclear or, at the very least, restate and explain your objection for Rhology in terms he understands. Instead, you spent your entire last post defending yourself, begging the question and attacking us.

Please issue a sufficient clarification for Rhology so he can interact with whatever argument you think you have to offer or enjoy being ignored.

Your posts are long on claim and short on argument. If you want to actually "demonstrate" the absurdities of Rhology's statements, then try making an argument - and a formally valid one at that. If Rhology has actually made a statement that is self-contradictory, or entails a contradiction, then this should be no hard task. Short of this, we have no reason to regard your arrogant and condescending statements as anything other than the rhetorical blusters of one who has nothing better to offer in the way of argument.

It all began when R submitted an unnecessary and illogical blog post...

As to the invalidity of your comparisons, firstly, do you know the meaning of "abstraction?" Secondly, the (non-)relation between tomorrow (an abstraction) and a specific child (not an abstraction) ought to be obvious, but may be briefly investigated by a few rhetorical questions. Can you see tomorrow? Can you smell tomorrow? Hear tomorrow? If you speak to tomorrow, can it speak back? Can you be held responsible for tomorrow? Can tomorrow change? Can you grant responsibility to tomorrow?

Is it not evident that comparing tomorrow to a child is, preponderantly, a path to the ridiculous? Stating the obvious ought not be necessary. When a blatant non-sequitur is the title of a blog post and is meant in all seriousness, no course of action can be deemed satisfactory.

But by all means, continue unnecessarily (and poorly and absurdly) insulting the Mother of God, a holy saint and member of Christ's body, which always makes you look more Godly.

Discerning intent is, to be blunt, irrelevant and a logical fallacy, ad hominem. I'll restate the specific arguments I just made, which you ignored whilst telling me I would be ignored for not making specific arguments. Specifically:

It is utterly absurd to claim that being anxious about the future is equivalent to being anxious for the well-being of one's child in the immediate present. (If such equivocation is not properly deemed absurd, some demonstration as to why it is not would need to be provided.) Grammatically the errors are numerous. For example, concerning the issue of context, a discourse against avarice has no obvious similarity to parents' responsibility for the safety of their children. Further, the intended meanings of the two passages are entirely unrelated and bear no obvious similarity to each other, and no case was made for rejecting the obvious meaning. The total disconnect between the construal of a translation (English, with all its peculiarities) and the actual untranslated Greek grammar further weighs against the intended correlation. Lastly, psychological incoherence is implied by the dispositional equivocation forwarded by the author, but as I said, getting an answer on that front is probably asking too much at this point.

Just for snickers: "When they saw tomorrow, they were astonished; and tomorrow's mother said to him, 'Tomorrow, why have you treated us this way? Behold, your father and I have been anxiously looking for you.' But Tomorrow said to them, "Why is it that you were looking for me? Did you not know that I will preach the sermon on the mount after I begin my public ministry and will hold you ex post facto responsible for obeying my commands which I will teach in the future?'"

Is it not evident that comparing tomorrow to a child is, preponderantly, a path to the ridiculous?

No, it's not. Especially b/c Jesus makes the exact same comparison in the same psg - "...about tomorrow, what you will eat or drink..." etc.I presume you'd be quick to correct Jesus in the same manner. Have fun with that.

insulting the Mother of God

This is simply a ludicrous charge.

Discerning intent is, to be blunt, irrelevant and a logical fallacy, ad hominem.

I didn't discern it. Mary said it explicitly. Maybe you didn't read the blogpost. It's short; I commend it to you.

It is utterly absurd to claim that being anxious about the future is equivalent to being anxious for the well-being of one's child in the immediate present.

So for what reason might anyone be anxious for the well-being of one's child, whether in the present or in the future? Do you trust God to provide in His perfect plan for your child, whether in death or in life, or don't you? A sinless person does.

a discourse against avarice has no obvious similarity to parents' responsibility for the safety of their children.

And of course the Matthew psg is hardly the only one in Scr that deals with proscriptions of anxiety. But that's not all the Matthew psg says. It says "do not be anxious".

the actual untranslated Greek grammar further weighs against the intended correlation

Yes, I realise that I quoted it in English, and yet the English translators used "anxious" both times. You have the burden of showing that they are not the same.

'Tomorrow, why have you treated us this way?

Obviously, now you're taking the wrong analogy. But by all means, continue unnecessarily (and poorly and absurdly) introducing red herrings, which always makes you look more Godly.

No, it's not. Especially b/c [sic] Jesus makes the exact same comparison in the same psg [sic]- "...about tomorrow, what you will eat or drink..." etc...[sic]

It's not the "exact same comparison." First, the context of Jesus' statement is avarice, entirely absent in the passage about Mary. Second, the importance of showing greater concern for others than for oneself is a hallmark of Christian belief, and of course one's children would fit that category. Taking it as you do is a reductive fallacy.

The burden is upon the exegete to demonstrate that they are properly handling the grammar in question. That no obvious similarity is to be found in the Greek grammar undermines your case almost entirely. Claiming that I have to account for the English translations is simply ridiculous: anxiety has multiple meanings in English, not all of which are implied by the passage in Matthew, so you first have to account for the possible English meanings, and even that you have not done. But as soon as you try to do so, you will be forced to examine the Greek, to determine which sense is intended. Further, all other uses of the word translated as "anxious" in the passage in Luke evince no implication of sin whatever. Therefore, it is your job, as the purported exegete, to account for the fact that you are using the word ὀδυνάω in a unique way.

Perhaps my assessment of the implications of your logic is incorrect, but to allege a red herring is incompetent or an example of projection. The proper term is reductio ad absurdum. And since you completely ignored my rhetorical questions, you are in no position to clamor about fallacies, because all you have to offer are bald assertions.

>>insulting the Mother of God

>This is simply a ludicrous charge.

It is not ludicrous, for you are charging her with some sin which she did not commit. If there were some merit to your statements, your objection would be reasonable. But in that case, I wouldn't be typing these words.

The comment about "discerning intent" was a response to Matthew D. Schultz. I forgot to mention that in the heading, hence the confusion.

So for what reason might anyone be anxious for the well-being of one's child, whether in the present or in the future? Do you trust God to provide in His perfect plan for your child, whether in death or in life, or don't you? A sinless person does.

This is a generalization fallacy. You might be correct if Jesus had said, "all anxiety in all senses of the word is sin," but plainly he did not. Here you are implying all senses of three different words: μεριμνάω, ὀδυνάω, and anxiety, but I don't think you realize this. In practice, you're assuming a specific meaning of "anxious" that is not necessarily or even obviously relevant. This is called the fallacy of equivocation. Paul didn't seem to mind that Timothy was anxious for the Philippians, so why not accuse him of sinning?

And of course the Matthew psg [sic] is hardly the only one in Scr [sic] that deals with proscriptions of anxiety. But that's not all the Matthew psg [sic] says. It says "do not be anxious".

The passage in Matthew does not simply say, "do not be anxious." It says, "do not be anxious about tomorrow." Glossing such obvious details is not wise when attempting to do exegesis. On this logic, the passage says, "Do not be anxious, for anxiety will be anxious for itself." But this is absurd. It says more than that. To treat it as you do is disrespectful of context. To make your case you would need to cite other passages, take account of semantics, context, and otherwise put real effort into producing an exegetical argument. I won't be holding my breath.

No, it's worry. "Clothes and food" are not matters of avarice. Read it again.

the importance of showing greater concern for others than for oneself is a hallmark of Christian belief,

Which is not what's at question here. Greater concern can be shown without anxiously worrying about the well-being of someone whose whereabouts are unknown.

That no obvious similarity is to be found in the Greek grammar undermines your case almost entirely.

I recognise the lack of similarity, but it's up to you to demonstrate why that undermines my case almost entirely. Words have multiple meanings in Greek too, you know.

Further, all other uses of the word translated as "anxious" in the passage in Luke evince no implication of sin whatever.

Immediate context, IP.

because all you have to offer are bald assertions.

Not really - I showed how Jesus condemns anxiety b/c it demonstrates a lack of trust in God's provision, and showed how Mary was anxious about Christ, thus demonstrating a lack of trust in God's provision. Maybe you didn't read carefully enough.

for you are charging her with some sin which she did not commit.

Ah, so now you're attempting to prove a negative. Have fun.

You might be correct if Jesus had said, "all anxiety in all senses of the word is sin," but plainly he did not.

1) Yes, I'm sure Peter was just talking out of the air when he spoke of laying all one's anxieties down at God's feet. No way he got that from Christ. 2) I guess if Christ speaks of tomorrow, if I worry about my car's paint job after a hailstorm, it's permissible. Or if I worry about whether I'll get a raise next month so I can afford a new TV, that's OK too, since Christ only mentioned anxiety about tomorrow.

Paul didn't seem to mind that Timothy was anxious for the Philippians, so why not accuse him of sinning?

Don't assume, since you're apparently incapable of figuring out what I'm saying. I would suggest this anxiety was not a good thing. And "not a good thing" is not what a PERFECT PERSON does.

On this logic, the passage says, "Do not be anxious, for anxiety will be anxious for itself."

?? This makes no sense. The psg is not equating anxiety and tomorrow. The psg says don't be anxious ABOUT tomorrow. No need to equivocate.

It is a curious thing to, upon enumeration of multiple logical fallacies, be accused by the offender of being a sophist. Any sensible soul would receive it as a compliment.

The burden of proof lies in the one making the claim: in this case, you. You are making a positive claim that a specific sin was committed by Mary. Since you have been notified that the grammar of the text doesn't support your claim in an obvious (or even non-obvious) way, and you evidently didn't even bother to consult the grammar before writing, you are obligated bolster your claim with further proof. The only positive claim I am making is that you have not properly dealt with the grammar of these passages, a claim which I have more than sufficiently proved.

Read it again.

6:19. Context.

Not really - I showed how Jesus condemns anxiety...

You showed nothing. You implied something based on the use of multiple meanings of different words equivocally. Equivocation remains a logical fallacy, just as it was the last time I left a comment.

I would suggest this anxiety was not a good thing.

You can suggest it, but that doesn't amount to an argument, so you would need to produce one. You would also need to explain why Paul uses the word ἰσόψυχον, because that's a very obvious impediment to your suggestion. It would also be wise to consider that a number of commentators would disagree with your suggestion:

"Paul, in my opinion, compares Timothy with others, rather than with himself, and he pronounces this eulogium upon him, with the express design that he may be the more highly esteemed by them for his rare excellence." -- Calvin

"There were, no doubt, many good ministers, who were in care for the souls of those for whom they preached; but none comparable to Timothy, a man of an excellent spirit and tender heart." -- Matthew Henry

"This verse is one of the most glowing tributes made to anyone in the New Testament." -- Grant C. Richson

"He [Timothy] is... of the same soul; a man after my [Paul's] own heart." -- Adam Clarke

"...he was one that was diligent to know the state of the flock, and looked well to the herd under his care..." -- John Gill

"He that has ever so little examined the citations of writers cannot doubt how little credit the quotations deserve when the originals are wanting"

xx

Looking for an Obscure Luther Quote?Chances are if you've wound up on this site, you're looking for information on an obscure quote said to come from Martin Luther or one of the other Protestant Reformers. This blog has been compiling information on obscure Reformation quotes for over a decade. Use the search engines below to look for your particular obscure quote.

Search Beggars All #1

Search Beggars All #2

Recent Comments

“Let nobody suppose that he has tasted the Holy Scriptures sufficiently unless he has ruled over the churches with the prophets for a hundred years. Therefore there is something wonderful, first, about John the Baptist; second, about Christ; third, about the apostles...“We are beggars. That is true.” - Martin Luther

"It is true that the best apologetics can be given only when the system of truth is well known. But it is also true that the system of truth is not well known except it be seen in its opposition to error."- Cornelius Van Til

"But a most pernicious error widely prevails that Scripture has only so much weight as is conceded to it by the consent of the church. As if the eternal and inviolable truth of God depended upon the decision of men!"- John Calvin

"The Scriptures obtain full authority among believers only when men regard them as having sprung from heaven, as if there the living words of God were heard."- John Calvin

Currently on my Shelf...

Find new books and literate friends with Shelfari, the online book club.

This is the best book available on Sola Scriptura. For Protestants, it will help you understand and defend sola scriptura. For Catholics, this book will help you understand exactly what Protestants mean by sola scriptura, rather than what you think it means. I highly recommend getting this book, it never leaves my desk, and serves as a valuable reference tool.